Nikon Z7 Review

Nikon Z7 Review

The Nikon Z7 is the company's most well-rounded camera to date: it's as well spec'd and suited for video capture as it is for stills, and the quality of both is impressive. The Z7's design offers an experience that will be familiar to existing Nikon DSLR shooters, but in a smaller, lighter body, built around the all-new Nikon Z-mount.

This is Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless camera: a 4K-capable machine which features a variant of the D850's 46MP BSI CMOS sensor, but with the addition of on-sensor phase detection AF pixels and mechanical stabilization. From our testing the only area where the Z7 comes up a little short is autofocus reliability and usability - something at which Nikon's DSLRs have long excelled.

Key features:

45.7MP full-frame BSI-CMOS sensor with on-sensor phase detection

In-body 5-axis image stabilization (rated to 5EV)

493 PDAF points with 90% horizontal and vertical coverage of the frame

The Nikon Z7 is available now for a body-only price of $3400. It is also available kitted with the 24-70mm F4 S lens for $4000 (many retailers are offering additional kits with the 'F to Z adapter' for about $150 more).

What's new and how it compares

The Z7 isn't just a D850 without a mirror: we look at the key additions and what the Z7 offers.

As a long time user of video viewfinders and having struggled with the D800 OVF focusI welcome the z7 EVFWill be testing one this weekend If your eye is secure against the eyepiece you should notHave any issues with shooting in broad daylightIn low light you should be able to turn on peeking Camera operators who must always hit focus have been dealing withEVFs for 40 plus years A huge plus is being able to analyze exposure without lookingAt the rear lcd especially in broad daylight As motion picture cameras switched to video sensors and EVFs so willStills cameras

It arrived at last in 2018 .. and was a big disappointment .. Z7 and Z6.

The Nikon Z7 and Z6 were not competitive with, the already successful, Sony a7RIII, a7III, as well as the sporty a9.

They came with a new, long-awaited, Z-mount, which is the future for Nikon lenses, and a several years road map for lens change-over.

I tested the Z7 twice at least, and when compared to the a7RIII, it felt like a pale imitation. It lacked the finesse and the speed of AF, the customization, and above all the available lenses. It was also bigger and heavier.

The Z7 is a competitor for the Sony A7R2. Small buffer, small battery, one card slot... But the Sony had better AF back in 2015. Today it sells for less than half the prize of the Z7.Is it really true that max. shutter speed with EFCS is only 1/2000 ??!? Even my Nex-5n could use its max. speed (1/4000).The Nikon has good ergonomics and a great Sony sensor, but the rest is just outdated.After the Z7 was released, I ordered my A7R2, for 1265€.The Nikon lenses look quite promising. 14-30 is a good choice of focal length. The 24-70 seems to be better than Sonys f4 lens (which needs an update), and both primes are interesting as well. 1.8/35 is a good compromise - Sonys 1.4 is huge and the 2.8 is too expensive. Around 50mm, I'd prefer the Sony Zeiss 55mm because of the size, but Nikons 1.8/50 is a great performer, too - and cheaper.Nikon, we're waiting for a Z7mk2, a Z8 and maybe an aps-c Z5 (mirrorless version of the D5600).

The Z7 will still generate many doubts to professionals , especially knowing that their AF system is not so outstanding (if we compare it with a professional SLR), but above all by betting on a new mount in which, for now, we only find three objectives available , which limit their possibilities.

It is true that with adapter we have a wide range of options, but the real thing is that if you look for lightness and a smaller size, you still have to wait for the optics catalog to expand. We have no doubt that Nikon has bet heavily and soon we will find many more options.

But surely in the meantime the fact using XQD cards and a high price, will be arguments that will stop the decision of many photographers. Meanwhile, we also find the Z6 that, on the verge of reaching the market, is perceived as more attractive to many.

I am not really sure about the arguments .. Z7 good for landscapes and bad AF. Landscape photoghraphers may just buy it. So, what about the Z6 supposedly for faster action .. same bad AF!! Who would buy it?

I think if either of these cameras were produced by any other than Nikon or Canon, they would have been shredded to pieces by reviews.

Heh, this isn't right or wrong. This is a forum.In the manual it clearly states the conditions that banding can be brought on by the use of silent shutter.In any digital camera you can generate banding. Just use your professional skills to avoid it. It's the same for dust, every sensor has dust, jus don't photograph a white wall at f22 and all will be well

Only problem about the Z7 and Z6 reviews and being awarded gear of the year, is that it makes me, and possibly many other readers extremely skeptical about the DPReview reviews now and in the future. It seems the reviews are more of a selling pitch, rather than a real independant neutral objective review of what is current and for real, and more of what may happen in the future or what was hoped to exist. Real shame, and I am sure that other review sites will benefit from this exodus or disbelief in DPReview as their first source of info and reviews.

Our annual awards are a selection of the cameras we thought were best in each category, based on our time reviewing then. They're essentially a summary of the year. I'm not sure why you're interpreting that as an attempt to sell something.

It is obvious for all informed that the SONY a7III should be the winner in this category, given it is such a better all round camera. Choosing the Z7 is not understandable, if you just consider its clumsy AF system, which in all reviews, including DPR, is shown to be below par!! then you wouldn't even put it as a good second,

How has this camera got such a high % score when the AF system appears to be poor? Doesn't matter how well the DR, high-iso performance is... if it can't focus properly on a moving subject then its useless to lots of photographers.

I don't want to sound like some kind of conspiracy theory advocate. But somehow I find it hard to believe that one of the biggest camera companies with all its experience and know-how plus having access to all the competition's gear which was produced in the previous years will come up with a product which is on so many levels below the par with their SLR range. Sorry but I feel that they have crippled their cameras on purpose. They know that that there were huge expectations among photographers but they still wanted to preserve their SLR ground. I'm almost sure that within 12 months there will be Z6 and Z7 markII and then 12 months later markIII . Meantime they slowly roll down the SLR business and thus make a total transition to mirrorless.

I am pleasantly surprised by the Z7, when it was announced with the EOS R I figured they would both be a total loss. The EOS R is worse than expected, the Z7 has been better. At least now there is some competition to push Sony forward.

@worldaccordingtojim "At least now there is some competition to push Sony forward."

Haha, your name is very fitting for you. Sony, sir, is already FORWARD in the mirrorless market and the Z7 is no competition. The A7RIII is not only a better value but it offers far more feature set and it's a very well built camera. Sony has it's faults and they tend to cut corners every now and then, but they make the best FF mirrorless camera for professionals and prosumers and Nikon's Z7 is not the camera that will "push Sony forward". You've gotta be kidding. 😂

First, I sold all my Canon L glass and bodies to move to Sony. But Sony is still lacking in a few areas.

1. Their weather sealing is the worst on the market.2. 8 bit video to external recorders, which I use an Atomos all the time.3. There is still room for improvement on the grip4. The hard plastic port covers are terrible5. The Wifi app is far behind all the other brands

So in these examples, the Nikon does a better job. So I would hope Sony would use these as items to improve in the Mark4 series. Everyone wins with competition.

@worldaccordingtojim "Their weather sealing is the worst on the market."

And so you've actually tested the Sony A7RIII? And if so, by doing what? Dunking it in water, 6ft under? I mean, when you make such a bold statement I would love to know which model you tested and how you tested it.......or are you going by the usual Sony haters that say that? I have seen many YouTubers pour water on the Sony A6300 and it has had no issues with functionality. Honestly, the weather sealing should be a non-issue for most, unless you using it constantly in sand storms or the rain forest. I'm sure the A7RIII would handle either one anyway.

"The Wifi app is far behind all the other brands. So in these examples, the Nikon does a better job."

Haha, I wouldn't even have brought that up. Nikon's Snap bridge sucks!. Yeah, I have a Sony A6300 and the app could use some work, but it doesn't drop signal and it functions, but Nikon is known for the Snap Bridge being the worst in the industry.

@worldaccordingtojim. Hey Good Job posting that.....uh....USELESS LINK. HAHA. Sorry but unless you're comparing the Z7 (WHICH ISN'T THERE) then don't post this nonsense. The Z7 is an overpriced camera pretending to be the D850 thanks to Nikon's lying marketing saying it's a mirrorless D850. More like a feature-less D850. Still, most people are not shooting in constant wet situations and despite your witty response (or you thought it was) it doesn't change the fact that not all lenses are fully weather sealed, so it doesn't matter if Nikon is a little better than Sony in that respect. Do you shoot in the rain forest or constant sand storms? Even if some people do that, most people will not put their $3000 camera in that type of environment, regardless of the type of sealing it offers. Thanks for the laugh. 😂

Lot of hate going on for a shooter who sold all his Canons and L glass to shoot Sony-so you could say he's a fan-then dares to suggest some areas where Sony could improve.

How do you know he didn't have to replace a Sony body after it got set in the condensation ring from a cold drink on a hot day..? Their weather sealing has been called into question-even by fanboys-enough to suggest that there are shortcomings in that area on some Sony bodies.

I'm going to wait for a couple of firmware upgrades before trashing the Z series, as I think it's a great start.

This is a Z7 review but he shot with a Z6 camera. It looks interesting though. The Z6 could have a better AF performance but let's wait for the more in depth review of its sister model. Better AF performance is usually the trade off with higher resolution and the sensor size for mirrorless.

89% for both the Z and EOSR put together. There was a time when the F-1 and F3 made Nikon and Canon the KINGS of pro photography, but rapid changes in technology demand rapid adaptability but both manufacturers hesitated. Now Sony is for my pro use. Fanboys, don`t cry over a label, just get what camera suits your needs.

Sony huggers think that success with one camera model is all you need to take over the market. Nikon has been making cameras for 100 years. There were bumps in the road, but it always came through. Z7 is not perfect, but nothing is. Sony has no idea how tough this market is. In a few years it will be eating dust. And not the kind of dust you can remove with a brush.

The Z7 had the potential to be as "perfect" as possible, especially since Sony's A7RIII had already been on the market. Nikon had all the cards in their hand to at least match the feature set and offer Nikon-exclusive features to bump off the A7RIII. Nikon's arrogance kept them from making the perfect camera. Heck, anybody would think they would make the "perfect camera" especially due to the forthcoming holiday shopping season.

"Sony has no idea how tough this market is."

Haha, are you for real? NIKON has no idea how tough the market is. Have you checked the prices? The Z7 is currently $3400. Sony's A7RIII is currently $2800. Please by all means show me where the Z7 is worth $600 more than the A7RIII? A company that knows the market wouldn't over-charge for their product when it's less than capable of the giant who's has far more experience in mirrorless.

Bear in mind there are multiple factors (investment in lenses, familiarity, pro-service membership) that contribute to inertia, preventing pros switching brands. Reviewers are trying to identify what's currently the strongest camera, which doesn't presuppose commitment to a system.

And thanks for reinforcing the fact that professional photographers pick the system that gives them the best results. Professional reviewers pick the best gadget. The technicalities important to professional reviewers are not the game changers that you so often make them sound to be.

As stated earlier by DPR, scoring is heavily based on IQ. So the fact that the Z 7 has almost the same sensor as the A7R III is what pushed it so far ahead. Not the camera's performance and build in general. The same can be said about the R falling so far behind, having to compete with the A7 III. DPR's scoring methods need to be revised.

@BluBomberYes, scoring is skewed towards image quality. It is, however, completely disingenuous for you to say that that was the main reason for the score and the Silver award; especially when the opening statement in the review says that “The Nikon Z7 is the company’s most well rounded camera to date. “That encompasses a lot more than just image quality!!!!

Unfortunately, the huge list of negatives, which encompasses nearly every major point of the camera, says otherwise. Adding usable video and usable LV AF definitely helped earn that "well rounded" statement, as Nikon was well behind the rest of the industry in both.

@BlueYet none of those negatives were enough to detract from the score of 89 or the Silver Award, or the opening statement.You can try to detract, dissect, disinform all you want.It does not change the fact that it is Nikon's most well rounded camera...this from a company that already has the best DSLR on the market in the D850.

The Z7 and Z6 are early adapter machines, for those who like to use mirrorless full frame camera's and a handful of professional photographers who are on the sponsor list of Nikon. Great camera's for sure, but not aimed at those who are in need of photographing tools on a daily basis.We all know that Nikon will come out in the nearby future with Z camera's which are aimed at professional usage, bigger buffer, multi functional (build in) grip, dual cards etc etc etc.

But with a camera like the D850 which is so good and so complete it will make it very hard for many professionals to switch to something which can't be seen yet as a replacement for DSLR. in relation to functionality and versatility

A DSLR with such a high price tag that shared the Z7's weaknesses, such as compromised dynamic range due to banding, sub par AF due to less than stellar low-light sensitivity,mediocre AF-C performance, not a single cross-type AF sensor (they are all linear), failing in pinpoint AF mode, borderline battery life, and serious ergonomic issues, would be heavily criticised.

Strangely the very limited amount of native lenses is not noted as a negative (and no, adapters are not a fully satisfactory solution to that problem).

In other words, I don't think a DSLR in this price range with these failings would receive a 89% rating.

In response to the comment"a large majority actually, of people here are just fanboys and/or stat geeks that simply don't understand the way in which $3,000+ bodies are supposed to handle/deliver. Very obvious they're not artists or pros, and obviously don't need $3,000+ bodies. "

There are many photographers and artists, who also understand electronics and statistics, and like to have the best tools for their jobs at hand. They are not fan boys or stupid geeks, just users who want the best value for their money, and to get the best their money could buy for their job or hobby.

Some people will continue to use film cameras, and others will keep their 10y old DSLR's .. Good for them .. but that doesn't make them Ansel Adams !!

On hand here, are specs and user feedbacks, that indicate major problems with this camera, at this level and at that price. That is the crux of the matter. It also, has to be compared to Nikon own D850 and Sony a7RIII.

What major problem? That's the thing. The AF-C issue was amplified by fanboys that made the camera so bad but that is not the case. I see that you rode with them without even trying out the camera yet.

Just look at the links below what the pro's are saying and let me know more about that "major problem" is about. The camera is fine. It has quirks. Teh demand is high and caught Nikon by surprise despite the price.

I tried the camera and the AF is not on par with the D850 in any shape or form.I haven't heard anybody contest that as yet!!All people say is; they know it doesn't function as well as D850, but they still like it, which is personal choice that I respect, but doesn't make it as good a camera as the D850.

@Bob JamesonTony and Chelsea seem to me quite expert in using and testing new gear. I rarely seen them so not convinced with any new competitive cameras, always looking at pros and cons. Tony even has a comparison between the Eos R and the A7III stating 'not clear winner" definitely valuing some of the strengths of the Eos R even if on paper is trashed by the A7III. I was quite surprise to see them not to really on board with the performance of the new Z from Nikon. To me that is a pretty big flag.

A lot of Fan boy comments below that are quite laughable. What I find curious is how a camera with an 89% score got only a silver award. How those awards are given is still a mystery and yes I have read what DPR says about it. Either the camera deserves a gold award or the score is too high. It would be nice if there was a detailed explanation of how the scores are given for each individual camera.

What are you missing? Well, take a look at the full reviews. The "Gold" and "Silver" awards are akin to participation trophies. It is noteworthy when a camera does not receive one or the other (point and shoot excepted). Gold and Silver awards should be handed out at the end of the year in limited quantities and based on the totality of the year's reviews and not at the discretion of the reviewer. Make it meaningful. Make it hard.

Second, the scoring system does not generation enough variation. Most cameras reviewed fall into a narrow band--in the 80s. Some of this is simply due to the fact that the cameras reviewed on this site are generally very good cameras. DPReview needs to rethink this. There needs to be greater variation in the scores--88 or 89 are for all purposes the same--and greater range of scores. Toughen the testing and standards. I think I recall reading that they are working on this.

Years ago DPR used Recommended and Highly Recommended instead of Gold and silver. It was very rare for a camera to be rated not recommended. When asked why they said they only test cameras that deserve the Recommended or better ratings.

It's better than most people think. It's has several features better than the A7R III more than the A7R III has features better than the Z7. Real photographers say it is a very good camera even edging the best all around DSLR in D850 is most cases:

Only Sony fanboys will say this is a bad camera so that they can justify their purchase. I will say to Sony fanboys, buy another Sony A7 body while they are on sale. Get a second copy, enjoy it, and don't look back. Buy them ASAP because Sony just lost over 30% market share on full frame MILC. What a better way to help your company by buying a second body!

"Only Sony fanboys will say this is a bad camera"I feel this is the defensive interpretation of some supporters of the Z series. I do not think many actually are meaning that. Z6 and Z7 are really good cameras however they do not exist in a vacuum. It is hard to recommend them at their price point when you have cameras like D850, D750, A7RIII, A7II. They feel almost a generation behind in some core features, no bad for a first but facing a tough competition.

I remember when the Sony SLT fans slammed all cameras because of their "poor" AF and "inferior" sensors. Sony fans patted each other on the back and bragged about how soon SLTs would dominate.

But sensible photographers knew Sony doesn't make cameras for real photographers. They lack decent support and accessories and their ergonomics and menus are pathetic.

SLTs were a massive failure.

Meanwhile Canon and Nikon kept building marketshare. Even with all the cries by Sony fans, Nikon and Canon hold a near 80% market share for ILCs (mirrorless, SLTs, DSLRs).

Canon learned long ago. There is no need to have the latest most expensive technologies. Instead the focus on being the best OVERALL system and supporting existing photographers (Canon replaces many accidentally damaged cameras in the US for free, while Sony lies about weather resistance and refuses to cameras damaged by weather).

The best overall system where nikon launch with 3 lenses (24-70 stinks), rely on adapters (nothing wrong with it imo), don't have a proper battery grip, only a single card slot, auto focus issues, a lens road map without fast lenses (apart from one).....

@Oskar P"Canon learned long ago. There is no need to have the latest most expensive technologies".That is what Canon do with a massive market share and a mature system. That will not work as a strategy for someone that wants to succeed in competing with Canon at this time. Sony in my opinion is doing many things right, the main of them calling the opposite strategy that Canon offers drawing to them people unsatisfied with Canon marketing strategy, successfully. Canon will offer you a BMW will a Corolla engine? Sony offers you a Corolla with a BMW engine. Complementary works. It is also great that Sony can work quite well with Canon glass. That is also why I own both systems, yet for my own preference I shoot 99% Sony and 1% Canon, hanging there hoping that Canon will drop a decent engine in one of their future models. It has not happened in a while.

Sony is failing. They are down to 13% market share globally.Canon APSC mirrorless (just a couple bodies) out sold Sony mirrorless, FF APSC, and SLTs combined in places like Japan...and not just for 1 year. For 3 years and each year increasing that dominance.

Now we see Sony has lost 33% market share in the past month alone. Ouch.

@Oskar P"Now we see Sony has lost 33% market share in the past month alone. Ouch."Going from 100% to 65% does not mean much at this time. It is really simplistic and naive making trends or drawing conclusions based on these numbers (i.e. are Sony Sales declining or MILC FF expanding? No new Sony model while Nikon Canon debut, etc). Sony has had their A7SIII ready for debut for sometime, and they postponed the launch as they saw no real threat from current Canikon offerings :-) so clearly Sony has a different view from yours on the happening.Let's pick up this conversation in a couple of years.

SLT's set the ground work for everything great in mirrorless cameras. Once minolta was out of the market some needed to step in and innovate. Nikon and Canon cernity wasn't going to. If you love your full frame mirrorless camera (any brand) you need to thank Sony. It was their out of the box thinking that got us here.

Panasonic and Olympus pioneered mirrorless. They pioneered 5 axis IS, electric shutter, and more. When Sony finally released a mirrorless camera, it lacked a VF, and IS. Later Sony got smart and started to copy Olympus, Panasonic and Aptina.

@Oskar PIf Sony did not work on FF mirrorless you can be sure that neither Canon or Nikon would be offering a FF mirrorless right now. That is pretty much a fact. "SLTs had nothing to do with mirrorless. They were a massive failure."SLTs are not a massive failure, Sony made the brave move to go all the way mirrorless sacrificing SLTs future, just like Nikon and Canon will follow suit with DSLRs. And again Sony is the overarching reason for which such process is happening much faster than Nikon and Canon would have liked to.Panasonic and Olympus might have pioneered mirrorless, but Sony and just lately Fuji created the first truly competitive mirrorless to compete with DSLRs marking with this past year with the release of the A9, A7RIII, A7III, and XT3 the beginning of the end of DSLRs. Sure it is not because of the micro 4/3 systems.But I doubt you get it Mr. Oskar who joined this forum 2 months ago and I know it all.

Sony developed it's on sensor focusing on SLT's. It developed its hi res EVF's for SLT's. Focus peeking DMF and facedetection / face registration all on SLT's. SLT's were the first SLR type camera with one button video. SLT's were only a failure to close minded people who thought all this features were just garbage that sony added, with no real value. Who cares that they lost a third of a stop. Sony over came that by removing the translucent mirror, and the sony A's were born with all the technology from the SLT's. Nikon and Canon along with their fan boys laughed and said these will never be a threat to our DSLR's.?..

Minolta used a very different kind of IBIS. It NEVER appeared in Sony mirrorless.Also, Sony quit using that outdated IS with video in SLTs and opted for electronic stabilization because their OLD IS created too much heat.Sony later copied Olympus 5 axis IBIS which is what they use in their mirrorless cameras.It is not as good, but it is significantly better that the Minolta/SLT IS.

Like I said, Sony copied pretty much everything. All they did was apply it to a larger sensor.

As digital cameras became much more functional and affordable, photographers started transitioning to digital. Konica Minolta (which was later acquired by Sony) was the first to offer sensor stabilization in its Minolta DiMAGE A1 camera and it was a matter of time until other companies started adopting sensor-based image stabilization.

Minotla was first sony acquired they may bout something else I'm not going to research that. IBS started with Minolta and sony bought it soon after.

Again. NOT the IBIS in use today.Olympus pioneered the 5 axis IBIS Sony later copied. It is completely different and far superior.Sony still hasn't been able to come close to Olympus but their version is better than the inferior IBIS used in most SLTs (A99ii finally uses the superior IS).

This is about the fact that Sony use the SLT to develop its technology. They made have bought stuff along the way to improve it but this what built Sony cameras.Like Nikon never borrowed technology. they have never innovated anything important. Minolta innovated most of the stuff we use. I'm not bashing Nikon that was never the intent. I like Nikon products. I still have a lot of Nikon glass I may go back one day. I was really hoping for the z 7 to be a camera for me. I want a smaller package. The camera isn't the deciding factor great photos. I'm just saying the SLT's were important for Sony. If you have never actually you should. It all the things that people can't live without now, accept it had it five years ago.Yes it wasn't super refined yet but it worked well.Things it had that " real photographers" laughed at and said no real camera would have that. EVF, focus peeking, DMF, Focus zoom,face recognition, facial registration, on sensor focusing. and I'm sure there was more.

Again, Sony abandoned the IBIS tech from Minolta. It sucked. It wasn't near as good as ILIS and it caused massive overheating problems. Every SLT that used it for video shutdown in under 5 minutes if used on a sunny warm day. Sony was forced to abandon it for video and instead used terrible electronic IS on SLTs.After giving up on that kind of IS Sony copied Olympus (but did a poor job). The Olympus like 5 axis IS which is very different is found in the recent Sony cameras.After buying Minolta, Sony abandoned their DSLR tech. They abandoned their IS tech. They abandoned most of the advanced A mount lenses. And soon they will abandon SLTs.SLTs were a complete failure.

LOL!!SLTs had massive overheating problems.That is why Sony abandoned the A55 body size. And in the A55 manual Sony had to a section explaining that the camera can overheating in as little as 5 minutes.But it wasn't just the A55/A33 that over heated. The A77 was found to quickly overheat too. Sony's solution was to skip using IS during video and do it with software. But that didn't stop the problem.

Someone's not paying attention. ;) DPR clearly stated the reason the score was so high was because of the camera's IQ, which is what the final score is heavily weighted on. The long list of failures in the Z 7 don't affect the score much, if at all, because of this. The Silver vs Gold rating is the more important thing to look at, with the Sony being Highly Recommended, and the Nikon just Recommended.

I feel so bad about some DPR members that they are so dependent from the camera gear that every new model makes them more capable, creative and overall better photographers and they need to wait year after year to get every niche improvement that there is...

On the one hand, I'm SO there with Tommi. It's really obvious by DPR comments that many, a large majority actually, of people here are just fanboys and/or stat geeks that simply don't understand the way in which $3,000+ bodies are supposed to handle/deliver. They just wanna argue stats and fling endless insults. Very obvious they're not artists or pros, and obviously don't need $3,000+ bodies. What they really need is to read some Ansel Adams and basic photography books.

On the other hand there is the clear minority here that's been avidly/professionally shooting high/top-end gear for a long time and know what truly matters in a camera to deliver more/better images for their type of shooting, or all genres really. Such photographers have a very clear idea of what's out there and what's missing. Such photographers always yearn for that extra thing, that could actually make the difference in getting the "perfect" shot.

Had the pleasure to see it in use today. Coming from Sony lands, all I can say is that I wish Nikon had released this 2 years ago... It feels great in hands, looks great, but yes, it feels much more like an A7RII competitor than an A7RIII competitor.

However, let's not forget the countless awesome photos that were taken with an A7RII in the previous years : I'm pretty sure the Z7 is an awesome camera provided you don't need the fastest tracking-AF or FPS... To me, it's a nice first camera, and I'm sure Nikon will solve its shortcomings in a year or two with a more capable body.

I won't move from Sony since I've invested too much in my current equipment, and I don't feel I need much more than what I have now (plus, Sony has many great lenses now), but had these two bodies been released some 2 years ago, I think I'd have moved to Nikon.

@kodachromeguy???I think most people below would agree with PPierre. Since its first unveiling the Z7 was considered by many an A7RII competitor more than the A7RIII which indeed makes it a great camera yet now not cutting edge and the A7RII was cheaper than the Z7 even at its first release. I think, included myself, many are annoyed by the biased overall score. I do not think anyone is questioning that Nikon did a great job for a first.

It's easy to generalize and claim the Z7 is an A7rII competitor because of some aspects of the Z7 AF system but when you consider things like the Z7 better battery life, better EVF, better rear LCD, top LCD, much better weather sealing, better grip, and overall better build quality you can see that it is a lot more than the A7rII especially if these are things that you consider to be important for your needs.

@Clayton1985comparisons are often done at performance level. Considering that right now you get an A7RII for almost half the price of a Z7, well I do not know if the advantages you are talking about buy the difference. Note that the Z7 battery is rated only 10% better than the A7RII and the Sony still has eye AF which is a really good feature and Sony offers a REAL battery grip too. So when you look at value for the money I am not so sure which one is better.

The Z7 battery is significantly better in the real world vs the A7rII. It isn't really close in my experience. I agree about the value to performance, that really depends on your own needs. For me, the better EVF, better rear LCD, top LCD, better battery life, base ISO 64, built in intervalometer, better weather sealing and my expectations for the soon to be released 14-30 f4 lens were the primary reasons I decided to replace my A7rII with the Z7. It was a difficult decision and I could have easily gone with the A7rIII and been happy too. They are all really excellent cameras.

@Clayton1985why the Z7 and not the D850? You do realize you are paying a premium for the Z7 I hope. What sort background do you have in photography gear? What have you owned so far? What is that you primarily shoot?

I hefted the Z7 at Glazer's today. Well, 'hefted' isn't the right word since it felt nicely balanced and not too heavy. It also felt quick and responsive and the EVF was fantastic. I don't have any XQD cards or reader so sadly I couldn't bring the pics home for a pixel peep :-( but the camera playback looked great.

I've tried them both now, and I think I like the Nikon a little better than the Canon. Probably the control layout of the Nikon is a little closer to the Fuji and Olympus that I'm used to-the twin dial shutter speed and aperture control (versus on the lens aperture ring) felt very Olympus.

@kreislaufa camera at this price point cannot be a generation behind in terms of AF and FPS, nor a single card slot and a tease of a battery grip especially when the battery life is far from top performance. In order to achieve top rating should have something truly special to offset the shortcomings. I do not see anything truly special about this camera. Just a good camera and understandable that the shortcomings might be irrelevant to many yet a rating is based on its value compared to the competition.

@armandino"In order to achieve top rating should have something truly special to offset the shortcomings"

yeah! like Image quality and ergonomics maybe?

"I do not see anything truly special about this camera"

that's because you are still focused only on the spec sheet instead of looking at the photos that come out of this camera nor did you use the Z7 in real live!!!

these reviews are for people who plan to buy the camera in question.If the camera doesn't suit you, that's ok.But WHY do you need to try to convince other people, that they shouldn't invest in that system? Jealousy?Or do you need to vent your post-purchase rationalization?

@kreislauf"yeah! like Image quality and ergonomics maybe?"Neither of the two are truly special, not enough to make up for the shortcoming at least. There are several cameras out there that match or surpass that, some of them are cheaper too. Someone needs to be pretty blind or requiring very selective needs (i.e. compactness?) to take the Z7 over the D850. Considering that the D850 is cheaper AND one year older, I still think my argument is valid. None of the new Z lenses are a draw to the system (differently from the Eos R system). Again I am not questioning if the Z7 is a good camera but its value in the current market. The Z7 will not get even close to the success of the D850, yet same rating? I Believe there is lots of solid ground on my questioning, indeed I am not the only one here disagreeing with the overall rating.I am not in the market for either the Z7 or the D850, so maybe I see things a bit more objectively here than people more invested in either or?

Comparing to own D850 .. because only if it matches or better than D850 I'd move

So compared to D850, and from personal experience as well as reading all reviews and watching all videos

-EVF no match yet to OVF, due to an ever-so-slight refresh time-lag, very noticeable if you can concurrently view the actual scene outside the screen-AF is definitely not a match, even in S-AF, there is a very slight time-lag using 24-70mm f2.8E VR at maximum aperture-AF modes and tracking very complicated to engage, change and move about. I even asked the Nikon guy to show me any short cuts or helping tips to make it easier, and they couldn't, because there isn't

-Missing 3D tracking which was always advertised as Nikon's industry leading technology, only till Z7 came out !! Now they say, who said it makes a big difference. Actually you did, and for a very long time!!-Shutter doesn't cover sensor when lens off, as in Canon-R when exposed-No Eye-AF as in Sony a7x xxx-Much smaller shooting buffer, especially in RAW-L 14-bit-Continuous shooting falls below 5.5fps with no EVF blackout and C-AF (9fps with MDB-18 and EN-EL-18c combo)-Only one XQD card slot (can still use my old SD-cards in D850 if stuck)-Banding issue limiting the dynamic range use-Only very few Z-mount lenses available even in intermediate term (5 year plan)-Smaller but not that smaller, and lenses still large

All these problems or drawbacks are already in the review .. so people need to read the review and not rely on the score, which is shown to be very mathematically biased, invalid and showing external unreliability. It is not testing what it should test, and it is shown to be unreliable in comparing cameras. This is a matter for DPR to re-visit, and perhaps get a good statistician to advise. They are doing a good job testing, but using dubious measures and methods, which produce a completely invalid and un-reliable score. So, don't waste your time and get a good mathematician/statistician.

It is unfortunate that the Z7 is so expensive, if it was considerably cheaper I think people would look at the comparison between the D85 and the Z7 differently. I do not shoot Nikon, but if I did I would currently stick with the D850 and wait for at least one iteration, unless you are a hybrid photographer really needing the Z7 AF and possibly the 10 bit files.

It is indeed a great camera, but at this price point, why people would prefer it over the D850? Unless portability is critical I really do not see any valid reason to get the first iteration Z7. Things would be different if it was considerably cheaper.

@Mared and @Satyaa, remove your blinders and look at what the Z7 has over AR7 III and D850 and you will understand. You focused too much on the negatives that you entirely missed the big picture and that is Z7's advantages over other cameras.

DPreview got it right. In fact, the score could have been higher if not for the auto area AF. Don't worry that Sony lost 30% market share on MILC full frame the last 2 months. Good for you, they are on sale now. You can get your 2nd body cheap. Deal with it. Sleep well at night knowing your Sony can still make great pictures tomorrow.

Bob Jameson - You're full of cr*p. First - Sony hasn't lost 30% market share. That was for for one store sales in Japan only - nothing like conflation and lying. Also - if you looked at that data, Z7 sales were miniscule - all of the dent in Sonys dominance was a temporary spike in EOS R sales. Z7 sales were flat-lined/dead :).

As for DPRs PROS/CONS if you look at DPRs positives, the Z7s are a joke in a large part. Examples: - "No need to micro-adjust lenses" No Kidding, it's Mirrorless!!!! and "Headphone and microphone socket" You think!?!? for a $3,400.00 camera!!! "Menus familiar to Nikon DSLR users" Well that's nice for Canon, Fuji, Sony, etc Users!!! "First full-frame Nikon with a usable silent shutter mode" Who cares, everyone else (Sony, Fuji & Canon) has had this forever!!!!

@Satyaa, my bad. I just realized I included your name. Not my intention. Sorry.

@Mared, DPReview is saying the A7R III is that bad that's why there is only 1 point difference with the Z... but you will not accept this. You knew that one small firmware fix by Nikon will overtake your beloved A7R III. That hurts really bad if it happen.

XQD is supposed to be faster and/or more reliable than SD. That's my understanding anyway.. SD is just about maxed out in speed capability, but XQD has a lot of headroom left for expansion. Meaning the Nikon might get faster at high FPS as its memory cards get faster.

"I greatly prefer operating the Nikon Z7 over the Sony A7R III. While the Sony A7R IV will surely be improved, Sony is clueless about building cameras with the right ergonomics/haptics; that is a key strength of the Nikon Z7. In my view, the Nikon Z7 and Canon EOS R are already superior in ergonomic/haptic terms to any model Sony camera."

It is great to see actual results where the AF is so much better than initial quick reviews.

The rest of the camera is mostly superior to the current FF mirrorless cameras (that have poor ergonomics and no weather resistance and lack lenses). 90 Nikon lenses function superbly...and there are more from several 3rd parties. And no 2.5 FPS restrictions!!

@Oskar PThe a9 has no 2.5 FPS restrictions, and has in my opinion superior ergonomics. As a fact the A9 is generally under valued and under understood by the majority. In simple words the Z7 looks like a petty attempts to mirrorless when you compare it to the shear performance of and A9. I am pretty sure the A9 AF and FPS will simply kill the Z6 or the Z7 with Canon glass ( not problem tracking at 10FPS), never mind with native glass, in which case the A9 lives on an entirely different planet altogether.I find it funny how you keep on clinging on the poor Sony environmental sealing, clearly it is the only thing you can hang on. Petty you.

But trolls keep say it can't do that! Shouldn't we believe those haters who never touched the camera?

The camera looks to be very capable. And unlike another mirrorless brand can shoot faster than 2.5 FPS with lenses like the 400mm 2.8, or a 200-500mm zoom.This camera has a much wider choice of lenses.

If you look at the short comings of the Sony, you can say the same thing. In fact, other than AF, the Sony has more short comings than the Nikon. Please look at it both ways and not open your eyes only to the system you already have.

AF-C performance is excellent news.The dodgy AF with back-lit (& low contrast) targets - that I enjoy abundantly with my 200-500/TC/D750 - not so good news, although the Z7 is still likely a way ahead of that combo. How the Z cameras do with that combo, I would have to dig out for myself. Once again though, the positive assessment of the AF-C single point is critical.

@HSway, I'm guessing that with your 200-500 you're shooting wildlife. If so, a £4400 camera with anything less than excellent AF performance across all modes is Imo, a deal breaker. I also have used the D750 with various lenses including the 200-500 and its performance and IQ is brilliant, thus I could not find any redeeming value in the Z7. Of course it may serve static photographers well, however.

@NextLupus, My friend, Im here only because Im recovering from the effects of 2 years of chemo treatments. I have little left right now but my opinion which I will post at my discretion and without your juvenile permission. When your mother finds out how much time you spend here she'll pull the plug on you. Now go do your chores and be good little boy.

@BeshknoIf true, I wish you a speedy and full recovery. I really do. However, that does not change the fact that you are trolling this thread and talking about product you haven’t used. Nor does it change the fact that you opened your account 6 days ago, just in time for the Nikon Review, which seems very suspect.

@Beshkno - I can’t agree about the AF and 200-500, and especially not with 1.4 III TC.The benefit of the Z6 is the number of focus point positions available for the framing (and there are more ways one can benefit from it, we all have different needs) and the instant feedback about useful, even critical things in these scenarios.

I'm planning to get this camera but the DP review doesn't quite match user experiences found on the internet particularly the pro users. It's very highly rated by pros actually. Hoping for a Z6 review so I can decide which camera to get after that.

Sony can't rest on it's laurels even though both the Nikon and the Canon mirror-less offerings seem in a number of ways inferior to the current Sony A7III. The company Sony took over from (Minolta) was always plagued by the description It's not a Nikon/Canon as if the mere name makes them superior. Popularity does not make a camera better. In many ways Minolta made a better product, Sony has to not just be better they have to be a lot better to overcome that blind brand loyalty.

Funny, to me cameras are just a tool, Sony cameras are no different to any other, they are no more "toys" than Canon or Nikon, my point was it isn't what label on the front that matters it's more the outcome that it produces (the image).

"DPreview: " The only area where the Z7 comes up a little short is autofocus reliability and usability" So it's a bit short on focusing and reliability, huh? Heck, focusing is one of the primary functions of a camera but heck, who needs reliable focus, right? It's only a $3,400.00 body camera so thats Ok. No problem in giving an 89% rating, eh?

@Bob JamesonI agree with you that AF-C performance is not the be all and end all of a camera. After all, landscape and portrait shooters, etc. don't need good AF-C performance.

However, DPreview have repeatedly made a point how important AF-C is for them, e.g., by rating the Pentax K-1 at 84% only, despite the camera costing less than half of a Z7 and being the only DSLR with in-body image stabilisation with a host of tricks up its sleeves.

Consistency in evaluating features would go a long way of making reviews useful.

@Class A, The problem Ive seen with the reviews here is they seem to compare performance with less expensive cameras to ones costing 2, 3 or more times the cost. Its like comparing a Ferrari to a Ford Fiesta. The rating must factor price point otherwise the process is seriously flawed.

I read at least 3 AF problems. General reliability for tracking moving subjects (that's a big one), face tracking losing focus more than competitors and AF in very low light 2 to 3 stops less sensitive than competition (lotd of hunting).

There's something to be concerned about for a large portion of the potential userbase. Only if you solely shoot static subjects or predictable motion in good light, there's no reason for concern. But that's where practically all cameras currently do fine. Even the first mirrorless Panasonic 10 years ago. For reference, some cameras released a few years ago were met with criticism for similar AF performance.

@Bob Jameson - Something to clear out - BCN covers just over 50% of Japanese market and has a long history of "tweaked" reports. So this 22% of Japanese market, not world FF MILC market, could be right but could be also very wrong. We are living in the world of fake news...

I have very little objection to the size and weight of a camera - all three of my DSLRs have grips including the D3300 which needed to be bigger anyway - so this size 'advantage' of mirrorless seems like a detriment to me. To hear Sony users evangelise about mirrorless, you would think they were without issues, but here we have the two players with the most to lose turning in mirrorless cameras that don't perform as well as their DSLRs, despite taking so long to launch them. To me, it seems like both Nikon and Canon are more inclined to protect their core business and launch mirrorless consumer cameras just to add another product line. It sure doesn't seem like they are out to alienate people heavily invested in their existing lens system, professionals in particular.

They could have just as easily slaughtered Sony for their poor ergonomics and build quality. Speaking as a Sony user there is a real delusion amongst a group of Sony users that their cameras are perfect .When in fact every camera on the market has its pros and cons. The A9 the Sony camera with the best AF is now on its third firmware update that improves AF

I think they have click baited every issue with the Nikon Z cameras in the manner that you would expect from the usual youtube shills. "Oh my god if you under expose by 4,5 or 6 stops and push it back you can get banding " etc

I am interested to see what happens with the Canon Eos R which a has longer list of gotchas than the Nikon, old sensor, no IBIS, one sd card , poorer build quality and so on. Maybe the drunken junket that Canon organised to Hawaii will pay dividends come review time lol

Because our scoring system is heavily weighted towards image quality and doesn't give much (enough?) weight to AF, which is the camera's biggest shortcoming. Even then, the Z7 is good at some aspects of AF while being poor in others - a subtlety it's difficult to perfectly capture in our current scoring system.

"When in fact every camera on the market has its pros and cons. The A9 the Sony camera with the best AF is now on its third firmware update that improves AF"

It's not that the AF was bad from the start. On the original firmware, the A9 was right with the D5 and 1DX II in AF performance, despite having a faster continuous drive and uninterrupted view of the action. Things will only get better with improved firmware. Wonder if it's to the point that it would surpass the D5 by now...

"I think they have click baited every issue with the Nikon Z cameras in the manner that you would expect from the usual youtube shills. "

You seem to have missed all the bashing Sony cameras receive in and out of their own articles. ;)

In your own words "And, while single shot image quality is extremely good, it becomes absolutely outstanding in circumstances where you can use the Pixel Shift mode."

The K-1 used one of the best Sony sensors available at the time and doesn't suffer from banding/striping artefacts. At the time you only identified two cameras that you thought had very slightly better IQ, both of them were/are significantly more expensive than the K-1. The Z7 does not offer Pixel Shift so that's another big plus for the K-1 whenever Pixel Shift is applicable.

Yet, the K-1 only received 84% from a scoring system that is heavily weighted towards image quality?

But, but, but. The image quality is a wash on raw and the Sony bests on JPG, low light, etc. The Sony falls short on build - so if the image quality is scored higher, the Nikon point should be lower or the Sony higher.

More about gear in this article

Sony and Nikon's flagship mirrorless cameras both offer impressive in-body image stabilization. According to our testing, you'll see a 2-stop advantage at the wide end and nearly a 5-stop advantage at the telephoto end on both cameras.

Nikon has announced a trio of new features for its Z-series mirrorless cameras are currently under development. They include Eye AF, Raw video output to an Atomos Ninja V and support for CFexpress cards. More details will be announced at a later date.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

The Fujifilm XF10 is a stylish, compact, well-priced pocket camera that will take great photographs. Unfortunately, the XF10's overall performance may be a let-down, including for those users coming from smartphone cameras.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.